What makes the D80 and D200 respectively "amateur" and "professional" cameras?

[neinlives]

I always hear posters saying things like, "The D80 is good . . . for an amateur

DSLR." What's that supposed to mean? I thought that the skill of the

photographer determines the quality of the images. I understand that, to some

degree, the quality of the photographer's images is determined by the quality of

her equipment, but still--isn't the determining factor the photographer herself?

 

Sometimes, I feel as though my decision to purchase the D80 is being

undermined/second-guessed by people with deeper pockets.

[neinlives]

Sorry--I forgot to tie the D200 into all of this. Basically, I'm also curious as to what makes the D200 so much better as to be considered superior to the D80.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

The D200 is more robust and has some weather sealings. Also Compact Flash cards are

considered to be more "professional" (but that's only a matter of time....).

 

But you can take the same high quality pictures with either a D80 or a D200.

[iancoxleigh]

If it is any consolation Nikon doesn't consider the D200 professional enough for its NPS.

[neinlives]

I've no clue what "NPS" is.

[neinlives]

Nevermind. Good ol' Google: http://www.nikonpro.com/about_nps.php

[larrybc]

Michael P, Jul 07, 2007; 02:19 a.m.

<br>

<br>> I always hear posters saying things like, "The D80 is good .

<br>> . . for an amateur DSLR." What's that supposed to mean? I

<br>> thought that the skill of the photographer determines the

<br>> quality of the images. I understand that, to some degree,

<br>> the quality of the photographer's images is determined by

<br>> the quality of her equipment, but still--isn't the

<br>> determining factor the photographer herself?

<br>

<br>Of course it is, but that doesn't negate the value of professional equipment, either. When looking at a camera body, the other consideration besides image quality is the features it has that will make your job easier.

<br>

<br>> Sometimes, I feel as though my decision to purchase the D80

<br>> is being undermined/second-guessed by people with deeper

<br>> pockets.

<br>

<br>It's a more a failure in your ability to measure your own requirements and choose the right tool. ;-) Define your needs. If the D80 meets them, then buy it.

<br>

<br>larsbc

[neinlives]

Fair enough. I guess I purchased my D80 with some inkling as to what I wanted to do but failed to take into consideration alternatives. From what I hear, as far as image quality is concerned, the D80 matches the D200. Should I decide in the future to purchase an additional camera body, I will make a more informed decision.

[geoff_worboys]

When you read the reviews you see the D200 has more solid body construction with some weather sealing, but also its shutter is "tested to well over 100,000 cycles". (I have not seen mention of such durability testing against the D80.)

 

I believe the presumption is that people who are "professional" photographers (make their living from doing it) will require a more robust camera specifically made to survive greater use.

 

In the days of film photography amateurs/hobbiests tended to take less photos than professionals, because of the cost and probably the time available to dedicate to photography. With digital photography the potential volume of photos taken even by amateurs is unpredictable.

 

My first/current/only digital camera (a Nikon Coolpix 5700) is under 4 years old and has taken over 35,000 photos. As an amateur there is absolutely no way I could afford taking that many photos on film, but with digital it was easy - and with a 3 or 5 frames per second feature on a DSLR I expect to take even more.

 

Eventually I will have-to/afford-to upgrade (the camera is in for a service right now), and I expect to be flipping a coin to choose:

 

. D200 for tested durability, so that it will last for many years and let me save up for extra lenses.

 

OR

 

. D40x or D80, that may not last as long but may let me afford better lenses up front and being digital I might want to trade them in for the latest greatest Nikon in a few years time.

 

 

(And of course just because the D200 is supposedly more robust does not mean the D40x or D80 will break down any time soon. :-)

[albertdarmali]

Michael, don't sweat it. It's the person behind the camera that determines whether it's an amateur or professional.

[tonybeach]

D200 is faster and has a larger buffer, it has pc sync flash terminal and is GPS capable, and the AF system is more nuanced and configurable. There are other things, but these along with the more robust build and better UI make the D200 more professional than the D80. I see very little that differentiates the D200 from the D2 cameras and quite a lot that differentiates it from the D80 and other Nikon consumer DSLRs.

[daan_barnhoorn]

"What makes the D80 and D200 respectively "amateur" and "professional" cameras?"

 

YOU

[elliot1]

As an owner and user of both (I have had the d80 for a few weeks, d200s since they first came out), I am quite impressed with the d80.

 

Image quality is identical. In fact, I find I get better skin tones with the d80 (although I find I need to turn the contrast setting to -2 to get pictures the way I like) and better exposures with the d80.

 

A good photographer will get great pictures with any decent camera/lens combo. If the d200 or any other camera had a feature or features you absolutely needed, the choice of what camera to own would be easy. If the d80 has everything you need, be happy with it and enjoy it knowing the picture quality you get from it is identical to that of its older, more expensive brother. Marketing is everything!

[aldrich]

About two years ago, I was in Maine with a much older family friend, old enough to be my grandfather. He gave me a Pentax SPII to use, a camera I was somewhat familiar with, and a simple SLR at that. He bought a disposable camera. I asked him why on earth he would do that, and he said to teach me a lesson. We went shooting for a couple of hours, and had the film developed. Sure enough, his photos were of identical, if not better quality. With people measuring the specs of equipment and stores competing against one another for business, we sometimes lose ourselves in numbers or prices.

 

I do a small photography business on the side, and I just bought my first DSLR. I looked at the Nikon D200, D80, D40X, Canon Rebel XTI, Olympus E-Volt410, and Pentax K10D. Most bang for the buck (at least to me)? The D40X, which is what I purchased.

 

The person makes the image. A camera (ANY camera) is simply a light-proof container that opens and closes when we tell it to (plus flashes and whatnot, yes, but I'm going for simplicity here).

[kfoster70]

I think some of you are missing the point of the original question. We all know its not the tools that make you a pro, its the person using the tools that makes them a pro.

 

We also already know that just because you have pro quality equipment doesnt mean your a pro.

 

I think what Micheal was really trying to ask is "What separates Pro Quality Equipment from Amateur Quality Equipment". And to me the answer is easy. Its durability and features. Particularly when it comes to camera bodies. When it comes to lenses its clearly that Pro Quality lenses are more durable, sharper and faster then lower end lenses.

 

None of this means that great photos cant be made with lesser quality equipment when put in the right hands.

 

Micheal,

The D80 is a fantastic camera. You will get years of use and great photos from it. Many Pros use consumer grade cameras when there not working becasue the Pro stuff is big and heavy. Consumer grade equipment has the advantage of being small and light. I have a D200 but still use my D70 when I want a smaller package to carry around.

[ptkeam]

In the last 6-7 years I think the "line" between "amateur" and "pro" cameras has blurred considerably. In the "olden" days a "pro" camera was something heavy & rugged -- built like a tank -- and versatile. You bought a Nikon F2 or a Hasselblad 500C and kept them for years (if not decades). I was a big Mamiya fan -- I owned a studio and had 6-7 Mamiya 645 1000s bodies which I used for 10-15 years and I tear up then I think about my beloved C330's (heck, I even had a Mamiya Universal). I did a lot of school photography and used Camerz Classics and used them for the same amount of time AFTER I had bought them USED.

Today, everything's changed. If you plunked down $4000 for a D2x and then HAD to get the "next great thing" 3-4 years later it would be hard to justify that 4-grand expense UNLESS you just used the heck out of the thing or ABSOLUTELY needed the ruggedness/speed of such a body. You can spend $900 or so for a D-80 -- use it for a couple of years and then replace it with something better and have it make perfect business sense.

So many people on this forum are SOOO concerned about whether they are using the "right" equipment -- I went to a seminar back in the 80's which was given by a guy who specialized in doing high-end executive portraiture on location. His name escapes me now, but was a recognizable name at the time -- He travelled around the country and mostly used Pentax K-1000's. He'd shoot on Kodachrome 64 and make internegatives to produce 40x60 prints etc. for big bucks.

He used the K-1000 because the bodies were rugged & dependable - lightweight & compact - and the optics good -- and if anything went haywire in a city away from home he could go to a K-Mart seven days a week and pickup another body.

I have a couple of D-70's now and I'm really happy with them.

Stop agonizing over your equipment folks

[walterbriggs]

Translate NPS into "Nikon Professional Services"..They've been known to save a few hides..

 

And I agree;it's not always the equipment you use..Don't forget the artist is behind the lens..

 

Take care,

Walter

[hayward]

The underlying subject has been beat to death. The much maligned Ken Rockwell has a great take on it here: <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm</a>

[mars790]

i agree with most everything here. the photographer makes the biggest difference.

 

but besides the better build, the D200 nails the exposure more often and the user friendly

controls help you set the camera more easily and faster in a crunch than the D80. like a fine

sports car that makes you feel at one with the vehicle...

[Sanford]

When it started to rain at a golf tournament recently the photographers using "pro" Nikon and Canon equipment kept on shooting, uneffected by the heavy rain while I, with my lowly D80, headed for cover. That's the difference.

[elliot1]

Sanford, I would have headed for cover no matter what camera I had - the pro cameras may be water resistant, more water resistant or even water proof but I don't think the lenses are. In any case, why take a chance with several thousand dollars worth of gear! I also suspect some of those photographers may use 'company' gear, not their own. I would imagine that makes a big difference too!

[walterh]

"When it started to rain at a golf tournament recently the photographers using "pro" Nikon and Canon equipment kept on shooting, uneffected by the heavy rain while I, with my lowly D80, headed for cover. That's the difference."

 

Yes - pro equipment is better protected. It also is designed to be repaired and serviced after abuse or severe use - so it will hold its value better.

 

As for the "pro" shooting in the rain - if you make good money with a camera you can also afford to replace one in case it dies the water-death^^.

[dan_k6]

I used to own a D80 but I sold it for a D200. I think that they Both take similar pictures. However I believe the D200 makes it a lot easier and quicker for you to take those pictures.

 

D80 out of the box overexposes for the highlights, you can work around this by playing with the exposure compensation. D200 is perfect at 0.

 

If you shoot sports or actions the D80 gives you 3fps, D200 gives you 5.

 

D200 is mostly metal, D80 is high quality plastic.

 

Looking back, I also thought the D80 produced better skin tones, and auto white balance under tungsten lighting was much better. D200 makes the walls look orange.

 

Again though, they both produce the same pictures, I just produce those pictures faster with D200.

[sjmurray]

Everybody has made good points. I just want to add that the type of photograpy you do makes a difference as to what type of camera you need. If you do sports and action, as Anthony points out the D200 has a bigger buffer and shoots faster, and has a more refined auto focus system, which would be really important.

 

If you do what I do, mostly natural light portraits using manual lenses, the D80 actually works better for me because it is much less noisy at 800-1600 iso (this has bee well demonstrated). It doesn't matter to me if it meters with older manual lenses or not, because I always have time to do a test shot or two. When I do recreational shooting, the AF system is fine for me because I'm not shooting sports or action shots. I specifically choose the D80 over the D200 because of the high iso noise issue after doing so tests myself. If Nikon made a D200 with the sensor of the D80 I would buy it.

[tonybeach]

Steve, the sensor is very nearly identical in the D80 and D200, except that the former is 2 channel output and the latter is 4 channel output. The D80 has better high ISO noise performance if you are shooting JPEG because of the more recently designed ASIC. If you saw differences in the RAW files than it could be an issue of sample variation.